BIOAEROSOLS EMITTED BY

BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES OF
TREATMENT
1. WATER TREATMENT:
WWTP

2. ORGANIC WASTE
TREATMENT: BIOGAS
PLANT

3. AIR TREATMENT
BIOFILTER
WWTP
 WWTP: EMISSION FLUXES

Sahu et al, 2005

Potsdam wastewater treatment plant
(6400–9500m3/d) mean total bacteria fluxes
# / m2 h
Upwind
7.7×106

Downwind
1 .4×107
background
7.5 × 106
WWTP: EMISSION FLUXES
 pre-treatment,
biological treatment,
sludge thickening

Most important source

et al, 2008
 ASSESSMENT OF INDOOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINATION
Teixera et al, 2013

north of Portugal,
300,000 habitants, of 66,718 m³/day

3 campaigns

Sludge dehydratation

Sludge deposal area

Sludge thickening

Outdoor Control
Teixera et al, 2013

genera of fungi :
Aspergillus,
Penicillium,
Cladosporium,
Alternaria.

Sludge dehydratation

Sludge deposal area

Sludge thickening

Outdoor Control
SPECIFIC MICROORGANISMS

Karra et al, 2007

FECAL INDICATOR DETECTION

Cardussi, 1995
MICROBIAL COMPOSITION
AIRBORNE ANTIBIOTIC RESITANCE GENE
 IMPACT OF OPERATING PARAMETERS

Brandi et al 2000

 Similar results
 IMPACT OF OPERATING PARAMETERS
volume of wastewater treated

Brandi et al 2000
2m downwind 20m downwind

Fungi  Similar results

IMPACT OF OPERATING PARAMETERS
AERATION SYSTEM

et al, 2008
 104
103
103
1.0×105
2.0×104
5.0×104
PROCESS IMPROVEMENT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT

N L. Fernando, P. M.Fedorak 2005

Fig. 2. Surface of pass 4 of aeration tank 5: (A) coarse bubble

aeration in 1976 and (B) fine bubble aeration in 2004

Although the surface area of the secondary more than doubled,

the average number of airborne microorganisms in this part of
the plant in 2004 was about 1% of that in 1976.
 RISK ASSESSMENT

Forestier et al, 2012 VEOLIA

Main Risk
Pre-treatment zone when realized in confined space
(Gram – Bacteria, Legionella, endotoxins)

Sludge dehydration (Gram – Bacteria, endotoxins).

Daily cleaning of equipment used for sludge dewatering

use of the water jet for all maintenance operations (projections), Total bacteria
especially at the level of the sludge flotation tanks. Gram – Bacteria

Task results are related to

concentrations of Gram negative bacteria and bacteria
measured during these operations.

THey recommend the use of coveralls and masks

BIOGAS PLANT
 BIOGAS FACILITIES

The phase
The storage area The raw material The digestion The digestion The air treatment
separation zone
for raw materials preparation area reactor tank process
of the digestate
COMPOSITION OF MICROBIAL COMMUNITY

Moletta et al, 2007

Biogas / digestate

Moletta, 2010
 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Biogas production is currently supported by European governments.

Characterize atmospheric emissions from

methanisation plants.

This project aims to:

Identify the main sources of emissions of chemical and/or
biological agents
Determine the area of dispersal of contaminants by air
Estimate the health risk related to this sector (chemical)
 METHODOLOGY

Biogas plant

Atmospheric emissions (Odors, Biological and chemical )

The phase
The storage area The raw material The digestion The digestion The air treatment
separation zone
for raw materials preparation area reactor tank process
of the digestate

Site Q. biogas/an (m3)

« Farm » 691 708
WWTP 1 559 048
Territorial 6 052 000

At each production site, biogas production was stable

 METHODOLOGY

Bacteria: Quantification qPCR,

BIOAEROSOLS Archeae: composition high-throughput sequencing
Fungy:
Endotoxin: LAL détection
 BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION

Endotoxins and microorganisms concentrations at the sampling point

were similar to the control

Endotoxin concentrations of the control(3-10 EU/m3).

Except for a few indoor air zones, with material release
WWTP: Raw material Stockage/ Input Preparation Area / phase separation
zone (100-200 EU/m3)
Territorial: Input Preparation Area (260 EU/m3)

Microorganism Control Concentration (5*103 UG/m3 to 1*105 UG/m3)

Except for a few indoor air zones
WWTP : Raw material Stockage/ Input Preparation Area / phase separation zone
Territorial: Input Preparation Area

Areas with highest concentrations depend on the methanisation unit

These areas were the same for endotoxins and micro-organisms
 BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION

Microorganism distribution
3 communities followed: Bacteria, Archeae, Fungi
Bacterial flora represents 50% of the microflora
Fungal Flora can represent up to 80% of the flora of the air.
The proportion of the highest Archeae "reactor, solid digestate"
100%

80%

60%
Distribution of microflora
40%
between the different community Archeae
Campaign 4, WWTP 20% Fungi
Bacteria
0%

Input storage

Reactor 1

Reactor 2
Input preparation

Phase separation

Control
 COMPOSANTE BIOLOGIQUE

Definition of biological activity markers

3 communities followed: Bacteria, Archeae, Fungi
Definition of specific OTUs for the methanisation chain
 DISCUSSIONS & CONCLUSIONS

 Characterization of the air composition in 3 methanisation systems

with stable functioning

 Emission levels are low for odours and chemical compounds.

 The chemical compounds recovered are similar to those found in

other organic waste treatment methods.

 Areas have high concentrations for endotoxins and micro-organisms.

 The dispersal zone of each production unit is being established.

 The first estimate of the health impact is being prepared.

The health impact is not going to be very significant chemical emissions

are low
BIOFILTER

www.epo-fr.com
BIOFILTER

Clean air

Biological air treatment process.

Mechanisms :
packing bed Forced air passage through the packing bed.
Transfer of the pollutant from the gaseous
phase to the liquid phase.
Microorganisms degrade pollutants.

packing bed = micro-organism support.

Biomass increases over time on the packing

bed.
Column

Air pollué
Evaluation of bioaerosol emissions from biofilters
32
PhD. Thesis – Rémi Soret

Performances:
 High removal efficiency when
operated in adapted parameters.

Adaptability:

 Used in wide range of industrial

environments :

 Manufacturing industries
 Wastewater treatment plants
 Composting plants

 Sustainable
 Eco-friendly

27/03/2019
Evaluation of bioaerosol emissions from biofilters

Biofilters’ use development  leads to questions about health impact:

Micro-organisms

Biofilters:

 Source or filter of viable particles ?

Biofilter
Evaluation of bioaerosol emissions from biofilters
34
Objectives

• Determine the Removal efficiency of a biofiltration pilot

unit at steady state during removal of chemical pollutant
• Investigate the influence of operating parameters on the
particle Removal efficiency

• The influence of pollutant feeding

• The influence of humidity
• The influence of gas velocity
• The influence of airflow impulses
• The influence of seasonality
• The influence of increased input effluent concentrations

27/03/2019
Evaluation of bioaerosol emissions from biofilters
BIOFILTRATION PILOT UNIT

Humidification
tower

Pollutant
injection Pollutant
injection

Ambiant
air
Percolat Percolat
Biofilter Biofilter

Centrifugal fan 2 m3/h

- Gasoline fumes: 1 g/m3 at Ug = 30 m/h. Packing-bed dimensions: h = 1 m, D = 30 cm.

- Supply of pollutant: alternation of supply / deficiency periods (industrial conditions).

- Average pollutant removal efficiency: 30%.

Monday  Friday W-E

BIOTECHNIQUES 2017 20/07/2017

 Evaluation of bioaerosol emissions from biofilters
SAMPLING POINTS 38

1 Ambiant air
Humidification 2
2 Biofilter outlet tower

Centrifugal Percolat
Pollutant Biofilter
fan injection Biotrack
(TSI)

Emissions of pilot unit

BIOTECHNIQUES 2017 20/07/2017

Inlet and outlets concentration of viable particles

1.40E+04
Viable particles concentration

1.20E+04

1.00E+04
(Vp .m-3)

8.00E+03
Inlet
6.00E+03 BF1 outlet
BF2 outlet
4.00E+03

2.00E+03

0.00E+00
-5 5 15 25 35 45
Time (day)
 STATIONARY STATE 40

100
Removal efficiency in viable

90
80
70
particles (%)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Deprivency Feeding Deprivency Feeding
Biofilter 1 Biofilter 2

• Removal efficiency: 80% in average, standard deviation = 15%, n = 29 measures / bar

20/07/2017
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF CULTURABLE BACTERIA

Confirmation literature (Sanchez – Monedero et al. (2003), Ottengraf &

Konings (1991).
Sanchez – Monedero et al. (2003)

biofilters can reduce approximately 90% of fungal bioaerosols (A. fumigatus)

and 39% of mesophilic bacteria from composting facilities.
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF CULTURABLE BACTERIA

Sanchez – Monedero et al. (2003)

Cell concentration can reach up to 1.3 108 cells/m3 air
The ELV of bioaerosol in ambient air should be lower than 300 CFU/ m3 (WHO)
Cell concentration can reach up to 1.3 108 cells/m3 air

 The ELV of bioaerosol in ambient air should be lower than 300 CFU/ m3
(WHO)

 1,4 to 4.5 103 CFU m3 Air (Vergara-Fernandez et al., 2012, b; Saucedo-

Lucero et al., 2014 Wang et al., 2009 and Zilli et al. 2005)

 The average bioaerosol in the entrance (ambient air) was 3 107 cells m3
air and consisted of 21% of fungi, 42% of Gram - and 37% of Gram+

 biofilm size
INFLUENCE OF POLLUTANT FEEDING 45
7 days
Stationary
12h / 48h 30 days 90 days Stationary
100
Removal efficiency in viable

80

60
particles (%)

40

20

-20

-40

-60

-80
Resilience
-100

Influence of pollutant feeding after 90 days of pollutant deprivation

Resistance Survival strategy Resilience

20/07/2017
INFLUENCE OF GAS VELOCITY 46

100
n=3
Removal efficiency in viable particles (%)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20 30 m/h
30 m/h 100 m/h 30 m/h 30 m/h
10

0
-80 -30 20 70 120 170 220 270 320 370 420

Test biofilter Control biofilter Time (h)

30  100 m/h 30 m/h

Removal efficiency increase as gas velocity increase

20/07/2017
INFLUENCE OF GAS VELOCITY

Sanchez – Monedero et al. (2003)

FIGURE 3. Correlation between superficial gas velocity

and removal efficiency for A. fumigatus ( ) and
mesophilic bacteria ( ).
 INFLUENCE OF GAS VELOCITY: MECHANISM 48
Ottengraf & Konings (1991)

Increase of the impaction phenomenon

Impaction on Impaction on
biofilm biofilm

BIOTECHNIQUES 2017 20/07/2017

Evaluation of bioaerosol emissions from biofilters 49

 Biofilter removed viable particle

 The removal efficiency is influenced by the gas velocity

and the pollutant feeding

 this work must be continued

• Is the composition of the microflora in the inlet effluent
similar to that in the outlet effluent?
• Are there microorganisms from the biofilm?
• Can the season influence the removal efficiency?...
CONCLUSIONS

 studies have found wastewater treatment facilities are large bioaerosol

sources and may therefore represent an exposure hazard to workers
and people living in the vicinity of these locations (the same for
compost facilities)

 Biofilters treating gaseous effluents can retain viable particles but under
certain conditions they become emitters.
Thank you for your attention